nach oben

Policy Sciences

Erschienen in:

23.11.2020 | Research Article

Spillover effects of central cities on sustainability efforts in a metropolitan area

verfasst von: Hyunjung Ji, Mark Patrick Tate Jr.

Erschienen in: Policy Sciences | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Metropolitan cities can serve as laboratories of sustainable development by experimenting with innovative sustainability programs while leveraging the advantages of metropolitan areas. With the importance of cities’ sustainability efforts, scholars have increasingly explored what factors motivate local governments to implement voluntary sustainability programs by focusing on internal government and community characteristics. However, what is missing in the previous discussion is whether city governments respond to sustainability efforts by other government entities, especially neighboring local governments. Drawing on institutional and policy diffusion theories, we analyzed the sustainability programs of 251 suburban cities in 66 metropolitan areas. We find that suburban cities are likely to consider sustainability efforts of central cities in the same metropolitan area when determining the extent to which they implement their sustainability programs. However, they are not necessarily responsive to sustainability efforts of nearby suburban cities. Our research sheds light on how local governments’ sustainability policy decisions are affected by their relationships with other local governments. It also provides policy implications for the important role of central cities in facilitating collective sustainability efforts in metropolitan areas.

Vorheriger Artikel Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences

Nächster Artikel Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: the role of structure, culture, and ministerial control

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Scholars usually define the central city as the largest city in a given metropolitan area and all other cities in the same metropolitan area as suburban cities (e.g., Homsy and Warner 2015; Madden 2003, Savitch, Collins, Sanders, and Markham 1993). Similarly, OMB characterizes central cities as more significant places than other cities in metropolitan areas in terms of population and employment and uses names of central cities (up to three) to title metropolitan divisions in order of descending population size (OMB 2000). Following the widely used distinction, here, we refer to the first named city in the name of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as a central city and all other cities in the MSA as a suburban city.

The survey was originally sent to both county and city governments with more than 2500 population. Since our paper focused on how suburban city governments respond to neighboring suburban governments as well as central city governments, we include responses from city governments only.

Our sample suburban cities are not from the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Washington DC, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The number of suburban cities in those states accounts for total 11.48% in population.

More detailed comparative descriptive statistics between our sample and population suburban cities will be provided upon request.

For simplicity, we included estimation results using the inverse distance weigh matrix that considers all suburban cities as neighbors (e.g., no cutoff distance) only. The results using other spatial weight matrices are similar and can be provided upon request.

Alonso, J. M., Andrews, R., & Hodgkinson, I. R. (2016). Institutional, ideological and political influences on local government contracting: Evidence from England. Public Administration, 94(1), 244–262.

Anselin, L. (2010). Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Papers in Regional Science, 89(1), 3–25.

Anselin, L., & Le Gallo, J. (2006). Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: Spatial aspects. Spatial Economic Analysis, 1(1), 31–52.

Bae, J., & Feiock, R. (2012). Forms of government and climate change policies in US cities. Urban Studies, 50(4), 776–788.

Bedsworth, L. W., & Hanak, E. (2013). Climate policy at the local level: Insights from California. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), 664–677.

Berke, P. R., Lyles, W., & Smith, G. (2014). Impacts of federal and state hazard mitigation policies on local land use policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 60–76.

Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Does electoral accountability affect economic policy choices? Evidence from gubernatorial term limits. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 769–798.

Boushey, G. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium theory and the diffusion of innovations. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 127–146.

Bulkeley, H. (2006). Urban sustainability: Learning from best practice? Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1029–1044.

Daley, D. M., Sharp, E. B., & Bae, J. (2013). Understanding city engagement in community-focused sustainability initiatives. Cityscape, 151, 143–161.

Deslatte, A., & Swann, W. L. (2016). Is the price right? Gauging the marketplace for local sustainable policy tools. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(4), 581–596.

Deslatte, A., Feiock, R. C., & Wassel, K. (2017). Urban pressures and innovations: Sustainability commitment in the face of fragmentation and inequality. Review of Policy Research, 34(5), 700–724.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Drukker, D. M., Prucha, I. R., & Raciborski, R. (2013). Maximum likelihood and generalized spatial two-stage least-squares estimators for a spatial-autoregressive model with spatial-autoregressive disturbances. The Stata Journal, 13(2), 221–241.

Edwards, D. D., & Darnall, N. (2010). Averting environmental justice claims? The role of environmental management systems. Public Administration Review, 703, 422–433.

Feiock, R. C., & Coutts, C. (2013). Guest editors’ introduction: Governing the sustainable city. Cityscape, 15(1), 1–7.

Florida, R. L. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.

Ganning, J. P., Baylis, K., & Lee, B. (2013). Spread and backwash effects for nonmetropolitan communities in the US. Journal of Regional Science, 53(3), 464–480.

García, C. B., García, J., López Martín, M. M., & Salmerón, R. (2015). Collinearity: Revisiting the variance inflation factor in ridge regression. Journal of Applied Statistics, 42(3), 648–661.

Glückler, J. (2007). Geography of reputation: The city as the locus of business opportunity. Regional Studies, 41(7), 949–961.

Gong, T., & Xiao, H. (2017). The formation and impact of isomorphic pressures: Extravagant position-related consumption in China. Governance, 30(3), 387–405.

Graham, E. R., Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2013). The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 673–701.

Halpin, D. R., & Thomas, H. F. (2012). Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests. Public Administration, 903, 582–599.

Hansen, S. W. (2019). Exploiting the common pool or looking to the future? A study of free-riding leading up to the 2007 municipal amalgamations in Denmark. Local Government Studies, 45(5), 676–696.

Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 593–627.

Hawkins, C. V., Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., & Curley, C. (2016). Making meaningful commitments: Accounting for variation in cities’ investments of staff and fiscal resources to sustainability. Urban Studies, 53(9), 1902–1924.

Homsy, G. C., & Warner, M. E. (2015). Cities and sustainability: Polycentric action and multilevel governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73.

Hoornweg, D., Sugar, L., & Trejos Gómez, C. L. (2011). Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: Moving forward. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 207–227.

Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (1995). The importance of the central city to the regional and national economy: A review of the arguments and empirical evidence. Cityscape, 1(2), 125–150.

International City/County Management Association. (2010). Local Government Sustainability Policies and Programs, 2010 Summary Report. ICMA.

International City/County Management Association. (2016). Local Government Sustainability Practices, 2015 Summary Report. ICMA.

IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group Ii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jensen, J. L. (2004). A multipopulation comparison of the diffusion of public organizations and policies across space and time. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 109–127.

Ji, H. (2019). How do different types of local governments’ sustainability programs relate to their environmental outcomes. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12363.CrossRef

Ji, H., Ahn, J., & Chapman, J. (2016). The role of intergovernmental aid in defining fiscal sustainability at the sub-national level. Urban Studies, 53(14), 3063–3081.

Ji, H., & Darnall, N. (2018). All are not created equal: Assessing local governments’ strategic approaches towards sustainability. Public Management Review, 20(1), 154–175.

Kolenda, R., & Liu, C. Y. (2012). Are central cities more creative? The intrametropolitan geography of creative industries. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(5), 487–512.

Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60.

Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., & Hawkins, C. V. (2016). The administrative organization of sustainability within local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 113–127.

Lee, T., & Koski, C. (2012). Building green: Local political leadership addressing climate change. Review of Policy Research, 29(5), 605–624.

Ma, L. (2014). Diffusion and assimilation of government microblogging: Evidence from Chinese cities. Public Management Review, 16(2), 274–295.

Madden, J. F. (2003). The changing spatial concentration of income and poverty among suburbs of large US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 40(3), 481–503.

Marsden, G., Frick, K. T., May, A. D., & Deakin, E. (2011). How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America. Transport Policy, 18(3), 501–512.

Marsh, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 269–288.

Myers, D., Baer, W. C., & Choi, S. Y. (1996). The changing problem of overcrowded housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1), 66–84.

Nagorny-Koring, N. C. (2019). Leading the way with examples and ideas? Governing climate change in German municipalities through best practices. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(1), 46–60.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2000). Standards for defining metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. 65 FR 82227.

Opp, S. M., & Saunders, K. L. (2013). Pillar talk: Local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States—Finding evidence of the “three E’s”: Economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Affairs Review, 49(5), 678–717.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557.

Peterson, P. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pommerehne, W. W., & Krebs, S. (1991). Fiscal interactions of central city and suburbs: The case of Zurich. Urban Studies, 28(5), 783–801.

Portney, K. E. (2013). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Post, S. S. (2004). Metropolitan area governance and institutional collective action. In R. C. Feiock (Ed.), Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Rincke, J. (2007). Policy diffusion in space and time: The case of charter schools in California school districts. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37(5), 526–541.

Saha, D. (2009). Factors influencing local government sustainability efforts. State and Local Government Review, 41(1), 39–48.

Savitch, H. V., Collins, D., Sanders, D., & Markham, J. P. (1993). Ties that bind: Central cities, suburbs, and the new metropolitan region. Economic Development Quarterly, 7(4), 341–357.

Schaltegger, C. A., Torgler, B., and Zemp, S. (2009). Central city exploitation by urban sprawl? Evidence from Swiss local communities. QUT school of economics and finance working paper, (246).

Schaltegger, C. A., & Zemp, S. (2003). Spatial spillovers in metropolitan areas: Evidence from swiss communes. Crema, 6, 1–26.

Sharp, E. B., Daley, D. M., & Lynch, M. S. (2011). Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Affairs Review, 47(3), 433–457.

Shi, L., Chu, E., & Debats, J. (2015). Explaining progress in climate adaptation planning across 156 U.S. municipalities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(3), 191–202.

Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840–857.

Swann, W. L., & Deslatte, A. (2019). What do we know about urban sustainability? A research synthesis and nonparametric assessment. Urban Studies, 56(9), 1729–1747.

Terman, J., & Feiock, R. (2015). Third-party federalism: Using local governments (and their contractors) to implement national policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45(2), 322–349.

Varone, F., Nahrath, S., Aubin, D., & Gerber, J. D. (2013). Functional regulatory spaces. Policy Sciences, 46(4), 311–333.

Wang, X., Hawkins, C. V., Lebredo, N., & Berman, E. M. (2012). Capacity to sustain sustainability: A study of US cities. Public Administration Review, 726, 841–853.

Wesselink, A., & Gouldson, A. (2014). Pathways to impact in local government: The mini-Stern review as evidence in policy making in the Leeds City Region. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 403–424.

World Bank. (2009). World development report 2010: Development and climate change. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Yi, H., Krause, R. M., & Feiock, R. C. (2017). Back-pedaling or continuing quietly? Assessing the impact of ICLEI membership termination on cities’ sustainability actions. Environmental Politics, 26(1), 138–160.

Zafra-Gómez, J. L., & Chica-Olmo, J. (2019). Spatial spillover effect of delivery forms on cost of public services in small and medium-sized Spanish municipalities. Cities, 85, 203–216.

Zeemering, E. S. (2009). What does sustainability mean to city officials? Urban Affairs Review, 452, 247–273.

Titel: Spillover effects of central cities on sustainability efforts in a metropolitan area
verfasst von: Hyunjung Ji
Mark Patrick Tate Jr.
Publikationsdatum: 23.11.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Policy Sciences / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09411-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Exploring criteria for transformative policy capacity in the context of South Africa’s biodiversity economy

Note from the Editor: Lasswell Prize Announcement for Volume 53 (2020)

Classifying public policies with Moral Foundations Theory

Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: the role of structure, culture, and ministerial control

Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences

Correction to: Why public organizations contribute to crosscutting policy programs: the role of structure, culture, and ministerial control

Premium Partner